










¥ <1 









CUICVI.AM 

FKO.M 


HON. JOHN M. BRIGHT, 

TO 

Th e ( 'itizen s of th e Fou rth Congression al 
District, State of Tennessee. 


\ SENSE of duty to you, as well as to myself, in¬ 
duces me to make a communication to vou, with 
respect to the recent salayv bill, which increased the 
pay of the President and Vice-President, Cabinet 
officers and clerks in their different departments. 
Judges of the *Supremc Court, members of Congress, 
clerks of the Senate and House of Representatives, 
and other employes of the Government. 

I have nothing political to conceal from you. You 
are entitled to an account of mv stewardship, and it 
is mv duty to spread the record of it before you. 

In times of great popular ferment, it was to be ex¬ 
pected that many errors, perversions, and misrepre¬ 
sentations should be disseminated. 

Under such circumstances, the public mind is in- 
Hamed, and abused by being fed on distorted infor¬ 
mation which has been driveled out to it from hand 
to hand, perhaps to the fortieth degree. 





t jKci J.AK i uo.m 


Ai\ ow n action lias liecn the suliject ot inisi’cjire- 
sentations which, to^'ether with a call from some ot 
nn- constituents, must furnish niv ajiolog’y for this 
communication. 

In an editorial of the Xew ^'ork vSun, commenting 
t)n the salary bill, in its issue of 27th August, 1873, 
is the following statement: 

“In the final test vote in the House, on the ist ot 
March last, the following jiiembers then, or since, 
chosen to the Forty-third Congress recorded them- 
sehes thus''—and amongst the Democrats placed 
under the head of ‘‘absent or dodging,'’ my name is 
recorded. 

The following is an extract from the Murfreesboro 
News, of August 15, 1873: 

“ In a complete list of the Senators and licpresen- 
tatives who voted for and against the back salary 
fraud, published in the New York Tribune, we find 
that Hon. John M. Bright, the member from this 
district, is reported to have voted one time for it, 
twdee against it, and w^as absent, or refused to vote 
five times.’' 

In the Murfreesboro Monitor^ of August 28, 1873, 
I find the following: 

“Editors Monitor:— It is my understanding that 
Hon. John M. Bright opposed the salary bill, passed 
at the last session of Congress. Upon what ground 
did he base his opposition? If so, wdiat does he in¬ 
tend to do with it? Is the bill constitutional? By 
answ’^ering the above, you will much oblige. 

Constituent.’' 

The statements in the Sun and Tribune—assuming 
that the New’S has correctly extracted from the Tri¬ 
bune—are grossly perversive of the facts. 1 did not 


I ION . jOJI N M. lJUK.Il r. 

“dod^e" the ‘'hnal'’ vote, nor did I vote hn- tlie sal¬ 
ary hill whieh became the law—nor did I vote for 
any other l')ill to increase the ]Dav of members of 
Conji^ress I was opposed to it from the beginnim^ 
to the ending—I voted against the first bill and voted 
against the last. In the intermediate stages of the 
([uestion, my o})position to it was so marked by votes 
and declarations, that no one, after investigation, who 
regards the truth of history, could believe that I fa¬ 
vored the jjassage of the bill, or had occasicjii to 
“•(lodge’’ the responsibility of a vote after having 
been so fully committed against it. It is true that I 
did not vote on several occasiijns when the bill was 
before the House, but these failures to vote were 
when 1 was paired off' with another, or on parlia¬ 
mentary cpiestions not going to the merit—except in 
the single instaiice I did not vote on what is known 
as the vSargeant amendment, which was entirely a 
different thing from the ffutler amendment, which 
became the law, 

Ifut I will allude to these votes and (^missions to 
vote more specificallv in the following legislative nar¬ 
ratives, to which I invite your careful attention. 

The salary ])ill presents two aspects for your consid¬ 
eration. One is legislative, and the other is personal. 

LK(;iSLA'riVK ACTION OX THE HILL. 

On the 7th of February, 1873, Mr. Butler, of Mas¬ 
sachusetts, from the House Judiciary Committee, re¬ 
ported the salary bill, known as the Butler bill, which 
was ordered to be printed and recommitted, to the 
same committee, (Globe, part 2, p. 1196—42(1 Con¬ 
gress. ) 

On the loth (jf the same month, Mr. Butler intro- 


C IHC I LAK 1:1: I IU).M 


(liiccd ;i resolution dliectin^' the Committee on Ap¬ 
propriations to incliicle Ihs salary'bill in the miscelho 
neoiis appropriatif)n hill tor the considerathm ol the 
committee of the whole I louse, ami moved a suspen¬ 
sion of the rules to put it on its ])assa<^e. On a call 
<jf the ayes and noes, I voted against this resolution— 
the vote standing yeas 81, nays 120—not voting 39. 
(Cilohe, part 2, p. 1234.) 

d'his vote was so decided against even the consid¬ 
eration of the bill, that 1 supposed it was the end ot 
it. But 1 was mistaken. It was destined to rc-ap])ear 
with greater force at another time. 

(.)n the 3d of December, 1872, the Executive, Leg¬ 
islative, and Judiciary appn^priation bill was intro¬ 
duced into the House. 

On the iJ^th of January, 1873, this lull passed the 
House with a provision increasing the pay of sundry 
clerks and officers of the House and interior depart¬ 
ment of the Government. But it contained no pro¬ 
vision to increase the pay of the President and mem¬ 
bers of Congress. 

On the i6th of January, this bill w as transmitted 
to the Senate, and, on the 30th of January, it passed 
the Senate with sundry amendments—the Senate 
striking out the increased pay of the officers of the 
House and increasing the pay of different officers of 
the Senate. (Globe, part 2, pp. 964-967. 

On the 31st of January, the Senate returned the 
bill to the House as amended, and the House ordered 
the amendments to be printed, and referred to the 
Committee on Appropriations. (Globe, part 3, p. 
1012.) 

On the 24th of February, the committee made 
their report to.the House, recommending an increase 


IIOX. JOIIV M. IVJiKJllT. 


ot the pay of clerks and other officers of the House, 
to make them equal in compensation to the same 
;j^ra(le of officers in the Senate. (Globe, part 3, pp. 
1670-1671.) 

So far, the flouse and Senate had been at disa¬ 
greement in relation to the compensation of the 
officers ot the respective bodies. 

The House resolved itself into the Gc»mmittee of 
the Whole for the pur])ose of considering the report 
of the committee—whereupon Mr. Hutler, of Massa¬ 
chusetts, moved to amend the amendment reported 
from the Committee of the Whole, bv substituting- 
the salary bill previously reported from the judiciarv 
Committee and rejected lyv the House. (Globe,-part 
3, pp. 1671-2. ) 

Mr. Butler’s amendment was now carriefl on a 
<livision of the Committee of the Whole, bv a vote 
of 81 ayes and 66 nays. (Globe, part 3, p. 1678.) It 
is my recollection that 1 was present, and voted in 
the negative, though I cannot verifv the vote bv rec¬ 
ord, as the “yeas” and “nays” are never ordered in 
the Committee of the Whole. The Legislative. Ex¬ 
ecutive, and Judiciary bill, as amended, was now re¬ 
ported to the House, with a recommendation that it 
do pass. The previous question was moved and or¬ 
dered upon the Butler amendment to the Senate 
amendment, and the “yeas” and “nays” being or¬ 
dered, the vote stood: yeas 69, nays 121, not voting 50. 

I did not vote at this time for the reason given at 
the time. During the roll call, the followdng an¬ 
nouncements were made: 

“Mr. Bright. On this question, 1 am j^aired with 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Clark.) If he 
w'ere present he would vote ‘ aye ’ while I should vote 


6 


CIRCULAR l?:tter from 


‘no.’ (Globe, part 3, p. 1926.) Just here a word 
of explanation: I do not approve of the Congress¬ 
ional custom of pairing; but it has been too long • 
established for me to correct. It does not change 
the result of the vote; and, by Congressional con¬ 
struction, the pairing members are considered as vot¬ 
ing one for, and the other against, the question. To 
resume the narrative: The vote of the House against 
the Butler amendment to the Senate amendment 
seemed so decided, that Mr. Butler and his friends 
seemed to despair of its passage in the House. Mr. 
Butler had moved to reconsider the vote rejecting 
his amendment, and Mr. Farnsworth had moved to 
lay this last motion on the table. Mr. Butler now 
asked permission of the House to say: ‘We are in 
such a position that unless we pass it in this form we 
cannot get any action. If we pass it, we can have 
the judgment of the Senate upon it. If they are 
against it, there is an end of the matter, and then it 
will go to a Committee of Conference, and they can 
agree and put the provision in such form as they 
think right. Then, it will come back to the House, 
and a majority of the House will have the control 
of the matter as they have now. Otherwise, it is a 
simple vote to put this case out of jurisdiction of the 
House and the Senate. This is why I moved to re¬ 
consider, in order that we may bring the minds of 
the two bodies to operate on the same proposition. 
I do not care whether the amount be fixed at $7,500, 
or $6,500, or $6,000, as some gentlemen have indi¬ 
cated; but I think there ought to be some increase to 
meet what is an actual reduction in our pay.’ ” 

“ Mr. Sargent. I suggest to the gentleman that he 
make it $6,500, and cut oflfall mileage and allowances.” 


HON. JOlfN M. BKIGIIT. 


7 


Mr. Butler. 1 will agree to an amendment which 
shall provide that this shall be the salary with actual 
expenses of travel.'’ 

‘‘ Mr. Sargent. I do not want actual expenses at 
all.” (Globe, part 3, p. 1976.) 

The vote was taken on Mr. Farnsworth’s motion 
to lay on the table, which motion failed—yeas 66, 
nays 105, not voting 69. I was still paired with Mr. 
Clark, of New York, and did not vote on this ques¬ 
tion, but announced that I would vote “aye” if he 
were present. (Globe, part 3, p, 1977.) The ques¬ 
tion recurred on the motion to reconsider, and the 
vote stood: yeas 104, nays 79, not voting 57. 

I did not vote on this question. The reason why 
I did not, I do not now remember. But I surely did 
not mean to “dodge” the question, as I was already 
fully committed against the bill, both by vote and dec¬ 
larations; and more especially as it was a parliamen¬ 
tary question to bring the matter before the House 
again, and not on its final passage. 

Mr. Butler now moved to reconsider the vote by 
which the previous question was ordered, and it was 
agreed to without a call of yeas and nays. This 
brought the Senate amendment again before the 
House for amendment. Whereupon, Mr. Sargent 
moved to strike out of the Butler amendment j|'7,500, 
the proposed annual salary of members of Congress 
and their traveling expenses, and insert in lieu thereof: 
“Shall receive $6,500 per annum each; and this shall 
be in lieu of any other pay or any allowance for 
mileage, newspapers, or stationery.” He called the 
previous question, which was ordered, and the vote 
was instantly thrust upon the House without ex¬ 
planation or debate. The House refused to order 


cii{ci;l>\k jJvTt Kn r ijom 


S 


the yeas aiul nays, anti the anien(iineiit ot Mi. vSai- 
i^ent w as a^'i eed to. 

'riie question then recurred on the agreement to 
the aniendnient as amended on motion of Air. Sar- 
ii^ent. 1 he veas and navs ])eins( ordered, the vote 
stood: yeas too, nays 97, not voting 43. (Olobe, part 

fv P* 1977-) 

1 did not vote on this cjuestion, and it is the only 
one directly involving the merits, on which I did 
not vote, or declare how I would have voted, but tor 
being paired. This omission, 1 am tree to admit, re¬ 
quires explanation. There were two reasons, whether 
good or not. why I did not vote on this question: 
One ,for the want of time to investigate the true con¬ 
struction and effect of the J^argent amendment and 
the difference in the pay to members of Congress 
between the amount allowed by the previous law; 
the other, that it was understood not to be a final 
vote, as Air. Butler had previously declared that it 
was intended to go before the Committee of Confer¬ 
ence of the two Houses, on whose report the final 
vote was to be taken. Upon investigation, I found 
this approximate result: 


Under the previous law, annual salary.$ 5,()00 

Average mileage. 900 

Stationery, newspapers, and boxes. 200 

Free postage. 400 


S 6,500 


In this aspect, the pay under the Sargent amend- 
mendment would have been the same as the previous 
law to the people, but different in adjustment amongst 
the members. If this had been all, there would have 






HON. JOHN. M. BRIGHT. 


9 


been no clamor against it, if it had become the law; 
but I found, upon examination, that it was subject to 
insuperable objections which, had they been present 
to my mind, would have induced me to vote against 
it all the time. If I had vbted for or against it, 
or any other proposition, it would have been my 
duty and my privilege, if I found that I was in error, 
to correct such error in a subsequent vote. But I 
was not mistaken in supposing that it was not the 
final vote. The real “ tug of war ” was yet to come. 
The disagreement of the two Houses resulted in the 
Conference Committee, as predicted. This commit¬ 
tee agreed upon a report in which they rejected the 
Sargent amendment, and restored the Butler amend¬ 
ment. The final vote was taken on the conference 
report, on the 3d of March, the day before Congress 
adjourned, when I was present and deliberately re¬ 
corded my vote against the whole Legislative, Exec¬ 
utive, and Judiciary bill, because it contained the 
salary amendment. (Globe, part 3, p. 2105.) 

The following is a substantial history of the legis¬ 
lation on the salary bill in the House of Representa¬ 
tives. If the perusal of the details have been a trial 
to your patience, I must plead justification in the 
great interest which the people have taken in the 
question, and to give the facts in their proper con¬ 
nection for their better understanding. So you will 
see that I was opposed to the passage of the law from 
the first to the last; did not aid in its passage, and in 
no just sense can be held responsible for its conse¬ 
quences. Six more negative votes would have de¬ 
feated it on its final passage in the House; and after 
it passed the House, it might have been defeated in 
the Senate, and after it passed both Houses, the 


lO CIKCULAH LETTER FROM 

President might have killed, it with ; his veto. It 
never could have become a Jaw except by the sanc¬ 
tion of the President, or over his veto. 

I am not, therefore, subject to the charge of voting 
to put money in my own pocket, or otherwise aiding 
in the passage of the law. There is no legislative 
power to compel a restitution from members whose 
term expired with the Forty-second Congress; but 
it seems that the rational way of correcting the evil 
of the future is by the repeal of the law. 

This was the course pursued as to the obnoxious 
compensation bill of i8i6. 

PERSONAL ASPECT. 

The application of the law to the members of Con¬ 
gress, after its passage, is broadly distinguishable 
from its legislative aspect. 

In answer to the communication in the Monitor, in 
relation to the increase of the President’s salary, I 
would say that, in my opinion, it was a violation of the 
spirit and reason of the Constitution, if not of the letter. 

The Constitution declares that he “ shall, at stated 
times, receive for his services a compensation which 
shall neither be increased nor diminished during the 
period for which he shall have been elected.” 

The object of this clause in giving a fixed salary 
was to make the President independent of Congress, 
and to put it out of the power of Congress to influ¬ 
ence his action on legislation; or, as better expressed 
by Justice Story, so that Congress.could “neither 
weaken his fortitude by operating on his necessities, 
nor corrupt his integrity by appealing to his avarice.” 
(Story on Constitution, section i486, i Kent, lecture 
13, p. 263. Federalist, No. 73.) 


HON. JOHN M. BIllGHT. 


II 


It is unnecessary for me to argue that the increase of 
the President’s salary did not make a powerful “ap¬ 
peal to his avarice ” to approve the bill, and that the 
bill would not operate for his benefit, even though it 
was for his second term. 

But the Constitution, as to the pay of members of 
Congress, is different from the provisions relating to 
the President’s salary. It says: “The Senators and 
Representatives shall receive a compensation for their 
services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of 
the treasury of the United States.” This is all it says 
on the subject—nothing said about its being “in¬ 
creased or diminished ” during the period for which 
he (or they) shall have been elected.. 

In passing, I would remark, that I do not agree 
with Senator Carpenter that the member, to whom 
compensation has been voted, is obliged to take it. 

I think the Constitution intended to declare his 
right to it, and to make it obligatory upon Congress 
to ascertain the amount, and provide for its payment 
by law. That being done, the member might waive 
his constitutional right to receive it. 

Since the public mind has been so greatly exercised 
on the subject, I have been painfully anxious to avail 
myself of all sources of information to furnish a guide 
to my action, particularly on the subject of “ back pay.” 
You will pardon me for asking you to travel with 
me through some of the stages of my investigation— 
bearing in mind that I am not bunting up apologies for 
a bad law, but only seeking light for my own action. 

CONSTITUTIONALITY OP' THE LAW. 

I find, from examination of approved commentat¬ 
ors,. that the Constitution entrusted Congress with 


ClKCUl-AK 1.KTTKR FROM 


L2 

unlimited discretion over the subject ot Congressional 
salaries. There was no check on the abuse of this 
discretion, except the terror and gibbet of public 
opinion. (i Story on Constitution, section 358. See 
also Rawle and Kent on same subject.) But it has 
been conceded on all hands that the law, so far as the 
Congressional salary is concerned, is constitutional. 

LEGISLATIVE ACTION. 

I find that Congress inserted a back pay provision 
in the first salary bill of 1789, relating to the first of 
the term. As this was the first Congress, the back 
pay provision would not have great force as a prece¬ 
dent, as it might have been the result of necessity. 

I find that the act passed March 19, 1816, contained 
a provision for back pay, and increased the compen¬ 
sation of members from the daily pay of $6, to the 
yearly pay of $1,500. 

I find that the act of August 16, 1856, increased 
the compensation from a daily pay of $8, to a yearly 
pay of $3,000, containing a provision for back pay 
from the 4th of March, 1855, nearly eighteen months. 

I find that the act of July 28, 1866, increased the 
pay from $3,000 to $5,000 per annum, to be “ com¬ 
puted from the first day ” of that Congress, which 
commenced on the 4th of March, 1865, nearly six¬ 
teen months. 


PRESIDENTIAL ACTION. 

1 find that George Washington approved the Con¬ 
gressional compensation bill of 1789; Mr. Madison 
approved the act of 19th March, 1816; Mr. Pierce 
approved the act of i6th August, 1856; and Mr. 
Johnson approved the act of 26th July, 1866, which 



IION. JOHN M. BRIGHT. . I3 

last act was passed by the vote: yeas 51, nays 50, not 
voting- 85, 

It is proper to'state that none of these acts in¬ 
creased the compensation of the President. 

R K PR E SE N TATI V E ST ATE SM E N. 

I find that Henry Clay, though Speaker of the 
House at the time, took the floor and advocated the 
bill of 1816; and amongst others, the following rep¬ 
resentative statesmen voted for it: John C. Calhoun, 
Richard M. Johnson, James Clark, Benjamin Hardin, 
John McLean, Timothy Pickering, John Randolph, 
and Daniel Webster. 

From the best information which I can obtain> all 
the Senators and Representatives of Congress at the 
time received the back pay under the act of 1856; 
amongst the distinguished Senators so receiving it 
were: James A. Bayard and John M. Clayton, of 
Delaware; John J. Crittenden, of Kentucky; Stephen 
A. Douglas and Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois; Lewis 
Cass, of Michigan; Samuel Houston, of Texas; James 
C. Jones and John Bell, of Tennessee. 

All the Senators and Representatives in Congress 
at the time received the back pay under the act of 
1866; amongst the distinguished statesmen were: T. 
A. Hendricks, of Indiana; Garret Davis and James 
Guthrie, of Kentucky; Reverdy Johnson, of Mary¬ 
land; Henry Wilson and Charles vSumner, of Mass- 
sachusetts; George H. Williams, of Oregon, now 
Attorney-general of the United States; and amongst 
these might be named all the delegation in the House 
from Tennessee. Rumor says that one Representa¬ 
tive did not receive the back pay, but I have no au¬ 
thentic information of the fact. 



II 


ClIiCUi.AK LliI''IIiU 1-:U)M 


ACTION OF THE PEOPLE. 

The people expressed great indignation on the 
jiassage of the compensation act of i8i6. Their 
clamor was so tierce that it forced a repeal of the act 
the next session of Congress. Mr. Mills, ot Massa¬ 
chusetts, speaking on the cpaestion of the repeal ot 
the law expressed the objection ot the people fairly 
to it. “ He had scarcely heard an intelligent man 
out of the House cpiestion tlie propriety of increasing 
the compensation. Such men had confined their 
complaints to the mode of increase, and that the law 
was retrospective in its operation, so that those who 
raised the compensation participated in the benefit of 
ifs increase, as well for that part of the session which 
had elapsed, as well for that which was to come.” 
Mr. Clay had anticipated the objections of the peo- ^ 
pie as to the propriety of members fixing their own 
compensation, and said: “As to the amendment 
to defer its operation until the next Congress, he 
would remark that, in his judgment, there was more 
propriety in the law ending than beginning there. 

It was more respectful to our successors to leave 
them free to determine what was the just measure of 
indemnity for their expenses, than for us to prescribe 
the rule for them. We can best judge for ourselves. 
With respect to the supposed delicacy of our fixing 
upon our own compensation, let the Constitution, let 
the necessity of the case be reproached for that, not 
us.” 

Mr. Randolph offered an amendment to the bill 
proposing to repeal the act of i8i6, to deduct the 
back pay of members in excess of $6 "per day, but it 
was rejected. 

The people defeated some and re-elected others 


HON. JOHN M. BRIGHT. 


15 


who had aided in the passage of the law, The peo¬ 
ple, however, afterwards repeatedly honored Mr. 
Clay with their confidence, and a great national party 
gave him a most enthusiastic support as a candidate 
for the Presidency. Mr. Calhoun afterwards became 
Senator, Cabinet officer, and was elected Vice-Presi¬ 
dent by the people. Mr. R. M. Johnson, author of 
the bill of 1S16, was afterwards elected Vice-Presi¬ 
dent by the people. Mr. McLean was afterwards 
made one of the Supreme Judges, and he was warmly 
solicited to become a candidate for the Presidency in 
1832, but he declined. Mr. Webster was afterwards 
repeatedly in the Senate, in the Cabinet, supported 
by many warm friends as a candidate for the Presi¬ 
dency, and became illustrious as the greatest consti¬ 
tutional expounder of his age. James Clark was 
afterwards elected Governor of Kentucky. To sin¬ 
gle out a few who received back pay under the act 
of 1856: Stephen A. Douglas and John Bell were 
endorsed by their respective parties as candidates for 
the Presidency when the times were “ big with dan¬ 
ger.” John Bell carried the State of Tennessee. 
Lewis Cass afterwards became a Cabinet officer, and 
Lyman Trumbull and John J. Crittenden were sent 
to the Senate. 

To single out a few who received back pay under 
the act of 1866: The eye of a great political party 
has been resting on T. A. Hendricks as a “ coming 
man” for the high honors of the nation, Henry 
Wilson has been elected Vice-President by the Re- 
jDublican party, and many distinguished Represen¬ 
tatives who received the back pay of both parties 
have been re-elected to Congress—such men as Eld- 
ridge, W. E. Niblack, M. C. Kerr, Samuel J. Randall, 


CIKCL'LAK LliTTEK FllOM 


1 6 


Kelley, and Farnsworth; Randall not only having 
been re-elected to Congress, but made Chairman ot 
the National Democratic Committee. 

Franklin Pierce, after approving the compensation 
hill of 1S56, received the vote of the delegates trom 
Tennessee in the National Democratic Convention 
for renomination as a candidate tor the Presidency. 

And Mr. Johnson, after his approving the compen¬ 
sation bill of 1866, received strong legislative and 
popular support. 

After this review, tinding that the back pay teature 
of the diflerent compensation laws have had the con¬ 
stitutional sanction, the legislative sanction, the Presi¬ 
dential sanction, the sanction of our great representa¬ 
tive statesmen, and acquiescence, if not the sanction, 
of the people, candor compels me to admit, however 
much I might condemn the policy, that the recipients 
of the back pay have not been regarded as felons; 
and if the people so regarded them while their pas¬ 
sion was so raging, they changed their opinion when 
they cooled down to the “ second sober thought.” 

If the law had been unconstitutional, and Congress 
had knowingly and corruptly used the form of law 
to plunder the treasury, then those who participated 
in the plunder, whether voting for or against the bill, 
would be alike guilty. But if the law, on the other 
hand, was constitutional, as it certainly was, then it 
vested all the members voting for and against it with 
the legal right to the compensation, just as much as 
if the law were a grant of land or an appropriation 
of money for any other purpose. 

Then, if vested with a title to it, the scquiter is in¬ 
evitable that he has the right to receive it. 

The act of drawing the money precedes and im- 



UON. JOHN M. BRIGHT. 


17 


plies the power of disposing of it. Should any 
member fail to draw his back pay, it will remain to 
his credit ‘‘ two years after the expiration of the fiscal 
year in which the act shall have been passed ”—that 
is, from the 30th of June, 1874, the end of the fiscal 
year, to the 30th June, 1876, when it would lapse 
into the “surplus fund” of the treasury, and there to 
remain “ without further and specific appropriation 
by law.” This is upon the supposition that the sala¬ 
ries of members were liable to lapse under the law, 
which may be doubted. Assuming, however, that 
they do lapse, then they may be drawn at any time 
before the 30th of June, 1876. If any member should 
die before the expiration of the time, his personal 
representative might draw it within the remaining 
time. So, that if the member would give it back to 
the Government, or make any other disposition of it, 
he must draw it, or go through the form of draw¬ 
ing it. 

But the most embarrassing question with which I 
have to deal, is: 

WHAT WITH 1 DO WITH IT.^ ' 

Various friends, with whom I have consulted, by 
no means agree as to what should be done with it. 
Some thought that it ought to be given back to the 
Government; others, that it ought to be turned over 
to the State of Tennessee; others, that it ought to 
be divided amongst the counties of my Congressional 
District; others, that I should keep it, as it was mine 
by the law of the land, and nothing but a fair com¬ 
pensation; others, that they would rather that I 
should have it than any other person, and that it 
would be unjust and unequal to take it from me when 

5 



i8 


CIRCULAR LETTER I-'ROM 


nearly all the other members kept theirs; and Irom 
abroad, it was solicited as a contribution to the Wash¬ 
ington monument fund. So that it will be seen that 
the public mind has been at sea as well as my own. 

If I should give it back to the Government, a cer¬ 
tain class would cry out, with the New York Tribune, 
as it said of the back payers, that they ‘‘ have been 
led by conscience, or driven by shame, or induced, 
bv considerations of policy, to return it.” 

If I should propose to give it to the endowment 
fund of a university, the clamor comes from another 
quarter that I want to make it a sounding board of a 
mock liberality, which is only ^‘charity in the rind, 
but selfishness in the core.” 

If I had left it in the treasury, the charge would 
have been made that if was only there with the dis¬ 
honest motive of stealing it out after the storm had 
blown over. 

If I propose to give it to the counties of my Con¬ 
gressional District, they are to be persuaded that the 
receipt of it would be contaminating. 

If I propose to keep it, others raise the cry that I 
am guilty upon the principle that “ the receiver is 
guilty as the thief” 

If I refuse to speak out, I am considered dumb 
with conscious guilt. If I attempt an explanation, 
it is considered a hollow pretence, and like dog Tray, 
I must be beaten anyhow. So that I am held at bay 
on every side. 

To give the money back, it would be only as the 
dust in the balances to the Government, whose an¬ 
nual expenses verge on $400,000,000. To give it to 
the State, or common school fund of the State, 
would not be just and equal to my own Congress- 




HON. JOHN M. BRIGHT. 


19 


ioiiiil district, as the other Congressional Districts are 
receiving the benefit, in some form, of the quotas of 
their respective representatives. 

But, fellow-citizens, not to weary yon with further 
details; without your fault or mine, and over my op¬ 
position, we were involved in the consequences of 
the law, you by having your part of the increased 
salary to pay, I by being subjected to its burdens. 

This last remark requires explanation: The larger 
the salary, the greater the exactions will be upon it. 
Washington City takes the gauge of the Congress¬ 
ional salary, and the price of rents, furniture, board¬ 
ing, and provisions are raised in proportion to its in¬ 
crease. 

Furnished houses, after the adjournment, could be 
rented for half the price exacted from the members 
during the session of Congress. The increased pay 
will only multiply the number and stimulate the im¬ 
portunity of demands upon it. • 

Congress is canvassed nearly every day for dona¬ 
tions to charity indigence, and for contributions to 
religious, educational, literary, and scientific enter¬ 
prises. 

Besides, it is understood that a Congressman’s sal¬ 
ary is partly to be expended for the benefit of the 
public. lie has to pay for all the printed copies of 
his own and other members’ speeches, which he dis¬ 
tributes amongst his constituents. He now has to 
pay postage on all the public documents, which he 
distributes, as well as letter postage to his constitu¬ 
ents. He has to respond to the calls of his party to 
pay for the printing and distribution of canvass doc¬ 
uments. He is expected to furnish relief to any of 
his constituents, or citizens of his State, who may 


20 


CIKCL’LAK LFir'l'KK FROM 


happen to be caught in \Vhishington City in a desti¬ 
tute condition. In short, he is tapped at every pore 
for money plethora, is expected to be as liberal as a 
prince; and if he withholds, he is berated as a nig¬ 
gard. Of all which I do not complain; I only state 
facts. Withal, he is expected, and it is his duty, to 
be an example of economy; and while he may be 
generous with his own, he must be saving of the 
public treasury. 

I believe that the true theory of compensation to 
members of Congress was not designed to be in the 
extremes either of penury or prodigality; but, as said 
by one of the fathers of the Republic, it should be 
fixed “in the middle ground where dignity blends 
with economy.” 

In fact, it makes but little difference to the men'i- 
ber of Congress whether his compensation be $5,000 
and mileage, stationery, and free postage, or $7,500 
without them. With either salary, the general aver¬ 
age of the members will not more than make their 
ends meet. 

Mr. Clay’s experience was, that he could save no 
more out of the Speaker’s salary—which was double 
that of other members—than he did out of his salary 
as a'member on the door. 

However, it is a matter of difference to the people 
who have the increased compensation to pay. Per¬ 
haps, it is the duty of members of Congress to wage 
a war of economy upon the exactions Incident to 
Congressional life. 

After this explanatory digression on the superven¬ 
ing burdens of the salary, I recur to the train of 
thought on which I was commenting: that you and 
myself were involved in the consequences of the law, 








HON. JOHN M. BRIGHT. 


21 


without the fault of either. You have your quota to 
pay. It is. beyond, the power of Congress to com¬ 
pel a restitution, at least as to the outgoing members, 
and it could reach the present members only by de¬ 
ducting the back pay from their future compensation.- 

From the foregoing review to throw light bn my 
own action, I conclude that by the sanction of the 
Constitution of the United States—by the sanction 
of the official antecedents of Presidents and repre¬ 
sentative statesmen of the purest days of the Repub¬ 
lic, the back pay is mine. 

I did not expect it, did not ask it, did, not vote for 
it. The Government has parted with it, has no claim 
on it, does not ask its return. Being mine, I may do 
with it as I please. My constituents having had it 
to pay, are the only persons on earth who can raise 
the question of a primary equity. The imperious 
logic of facts drives me to this conclusion. 

Being mine, I had intended, and privately so ex¬ 
pressed my intention, to offer it in pro rata propor¬ 
tions to the counties composing the 4th Congressional 
District, (and which district I was proud to repre¬ 
sent), through their County Courts; not because I 
had stolen it; not because I was conscious-stung, like 
Judas, to cast it at your feet as the fee of, treachery; 
for I did not betray you. 

Nor did I intend to offer it as a bribe for any^ future 
preferment, nor use it as a screen to anticipated re¬ 
sentment. I felt as jealous of your honor, as of my 
own, and I would have scorned to propose any thing 
which I thought indefensible in law or morals. 

Recent circumstances, however, have induced me 
to change my intentions. I decline now to make the 
offer to the County Courts, for,the reason that an 
6 


22 


CIRCULAR LETTER FROM 


effort has been made to forestal their impartial action, 
and because such offers elsewhere have been decried 
and rejected as the specious overtures of the dema¬ 
gogue. Popular jealousy is so aroused that I am put 
to a disadvantage on all sides. 

I understand my embarrassing posture. If I should 
make the offer, an effort would be made to have it 
rejected ^ with insult; if I do not make the offer, I 
may be snubbed for the refusal. 

As their representative, I claim that I am entitled 
to the fair and impartial judgment of the people. 
First know, next deliberate, and then judge. 

Notwithstanding I decline a tender to the County 
Courts, yet if the people in any or all of the coun¬ 
ties in the Congressional District, assert a primary 
equity to the back pay by any general expression, in 
deference to their wish, I will take pleasure^ in send¬ 
ing such county a check for its pro rata share, on ap¬ 
plication of a proper agent to receive it. 

Accepting an advantage under an unwise and im¬ 
politic law, by no means commits us to an endorse¬ 
ment of it. 

Many of our purest and best citizens have taken 
stock in our National Banks who were opposed to 
the whole banking system, and would have voted 
against the law authorizing them had they been 
members of Congress. They availed themselves of 
their advantages because they were lawful, although 
the avowed object of their creation was to break 
down the banking institutions of the States and cen¬ 
tralize the banking powers of the nation in the Gen¬ 
eral Government. At the same time, all the people 
became involved in the consequences by being com¬ 
pelled to use the currency. 


HON; JOHN M. BRIGHT. 


23 

I do not claim that my legislative action is above 
criticism. To expect infallibility of me would be to 
measure me by a standard by which none of you 
would be willing to be measured. 

You may acquit me of sordid motives when I tell 
you that I voted for the repeal of the franking priv¬ 
ilege, the effect of which was to relieve the Govern¬ 
ment from paying, as to myself, from $300 to $500 
p^r year, and to impose the burden upon my salary 
when it stood at $5,000 per year, with no prospect of 
increasing it at the time. I thought the franking 
privilege right within itself, but it was asserted that 
the privilege had been greatly abused during the last 
Presidential canvass, as well as at other times, and I 
yielded up my private advantage to correct a public 
abuse. 

I voted against the salary bill to defeat it when it 
was known that its defeat would result in a called 
session of Congress, which would enhance my per¬ 
sonal expenses. 

It was a bad law, and I rejoice to know that I rep¬ 
resented you in voting against it. You stand right, 
through your representative, on the record. 

You had cause to arouse your alarm at the rapid 
drift of the Government to extravagance. In 1856, 
the Congressional salary had been increased from $8 
per day to $3,000 per year with mileage; in 1866, it 
was increased to $5,000 per year with mileage and 
stationery; in 1873, it was increased to $7,500 with 
actual traveling expenses, less mileage and stationery, 
at the same time increasing the salaries of numerous 
other officers of the Government, and at a time when 
there was no financial crisis, when there was no 
blight of the harvests, nor disease of the ffocks and 


H 


CIRCULAR LETTJiR. 


herds to raise the cost of living to famine prices, and 
at a time when the people were galled and stagger¬ 
ing under the burden of taxation^ lily voice has been 
lifted against subsidies, monopolies,, and exorbitant 
taxation. 

It has been my highest ambition, by faithful ser¬ 
vice, to win your approbation, which is the true 
reward of the patriot. 

JOHN M. BRIGHT. 

Fayetteville, Tenn. 























